A jury foreman has voiced doubts that a childminder jailed for shaking an 11-month old baby to death was guilty.
Keran Henderson, 43, of Iver Heath, Bucks, was jailed for three years for the manslaughter of Maeve Sheppard on a verdict based on a 10-2 majority.
The foreman, who cannot be named, said the verdict was not safe and that juries needed to be better trained.
In December another juror in the Henderson trial said a "miscarriage of justice had occurred".
Maeve, whose parents, Ruth and Mark, live in Slough, Berks, was taken unconscious to hospital in 2005 from Henderson's home where she was being looked after.
The court had heard from experts who said injuries were caused by the baby's neck being violently snapped back and forth.
The foreman said he wanted to see a change in the law to help future juries tackle complex trial arguments.
He said: "They hadn't got a case, really. I think for a case you want a body, a perpetrator, a witness and a motive.
"We have a body, we have a possible perpetrator. Have we a motive? A soiled nappy? I don't think so, not for a trained and experienced childminder. Witnesses? Not one. No case.
"And so they put up a case with experts."
The foreman said that if one "followed the path the prosecution took" it was "just about impossible" not to arrive at a guilty verdict.
But to do that, he added, "You need to accept that their case is a good one - and I don't".
The jury foreman said he wanted to approach the Law Lords to see if it was possible to "not just change this case but change the whole way that the court hearing the trial was put together.
"The way it was set up is stacked against not just the accused but against the jury itself. I don't think either of us had a chance."
Knowledge and understanding
This, he said, was because of the amount of complex medical terminology being used.
"We had an awful lot of novel information, a whole new vocabulary to learn, and that makes it difficult.
"When you take on six weeks' worth of new vocabulary, which you barely understand the meaning of and are having difficulty pronouncing, what you don't have is understanding.
"If you compare that with the lawyers and the medics who are dealing in their own fields - they have knowledge, they have understanding.
"At the end of the case the jury has got to be the judge, because it is they who make the decision.
"I don't think you can do it with just knowledge and not understanding.
"I think you need a specialised jury, that is not trained in medics, not trained in the law, but is trained in the methods of thinking its way through.
"In other words, it's philosophically trained, that's all it needs to be, but it does need to be that because without it you're not going to get safe verdicts and that's what happened in this case."
Another juror had previously told the BBC that the medical evidence in the case was too complicated for jurors to assess.
She said: "I believe that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and there's nothing I can do about it.
"I don't think you can get a fair outcome.
"I will never know as long as I live whether the verdict was right or not because I haven't, we haven't, got all this medical expertise, and I think if the medics can't even decide between themselves, what chance do we have?"
'Matter for the judge'
A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the department cannot comment on specific cases.
"The conduct of the trial is a matter for the judge," she said.
"It is their role to interpret the law for the jury and to provide directions for the jury when summing up so that they are appropriately equipped for their deliberations.
If the jury are in any doubt about the evidence or about the judge's instructions, they can send a note to the judge who will give them any help that he can.
The presentation of the case for the prosecution is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service (Attorney General)."
Source: BBC